Law Commons^™

A Grace Period And European Patent Law: It's Time For Change, Martin J. Adelman

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article begins by discussing the first-to-file and first-to-invent approaches to inventions. Next, the article describes how each of the two systems defines “prior art” and argues that employing the first-to-invent approach has two problems: a lack of incentive to file early and difficulty in advising an inventor about what qualifies as prior art. In the United States, something counts as prior art “[i]f the publication date is more than one year before the actual filing date.” The article concludes that Europe would benefit from adding a grace period because it would make the system fairer and create more similarity …

The Proper Scope Of The Copyright And Patent Power, Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Scholarly Works

As an increasing amount of society's wealth is tied up in intangible assets, strong, clear property rights can make a good deal of sense. But it is also possible to have too much of a good thing, and our society is in danger of reaching that point. Recent scholarship suggests as much: a growing body of literature details the expansion of particular doctrines, the rising burden of IP-related transaction costs, or the pressing need for collective *46 institutions to mediate between individual firms and the mushrooming pile of IP rights they must traverse to do business.

In this Essay, we …

In Vento Scribere: The Intersection Of Cyberspace And Patent Law, Max Oppenheimer

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Notes On Trademark Monopolies, Wendy J. Gordon, Glynn S. Lunney Jr.

Scholarship Chronologically

Since 1742, when Lord Hardwicke seemingly equated trademark protection with monopoly in one of the first trademark cases, until the mid- 1950s, concerns that trademarks represented a form of illegitimate monopoly effectively constrained the growth of trademark protection. In the twentieth century, Edward Chamberlain became the leading proponent of the trademark as monopoly view with the publication of his work, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, in 1933. In his work, Chamberlain argued that a trademark enabled its owner to differentiate her products and then to exclude others from using the differentiating feature. By doing so, trademark protection can effectively …

When Is Property Intellectual: The Leveraging Problem Essays, Mark R. Patterson

Faculty Scholarship

Patents and copyrights protect inventions and expression; they do not protect products. This distinction, I argue in this essay, is a key to the antitrust problem of the "leveraging" of intellectual property. In a typical leveraging case, the manufacturer of a durable good, like a copier or computer, refuses to sell replacement parts for its equipment unless the purchaser also hires the manufacturer to service the equipment. Such a practice can be illegal under antitrust law, but when the leveraging products-in this example, replacement parts-are protected by patent or copyright, the manufacturer will often claim that the leveraging is a …

Rethinking Remedies At The Intersection Of Intellectual Property And Contract: Toward A Unified Body Of Law, Maureen A. O'Rourke

Faculty Scholarship

As society continues to move "on-line"' and technology advances in fields such as biotechnology, a paradigm shift is occurring. Investors are focusing less on asset valuations based on the physical goods owned by a particular firm and more on the value of intangibles-the information and know-how possessed by the firm and embodied in its intellectual property rights. Firms and even entire industries have grown up with the primarily paper assets of patents and copyrights.

Assertive Modesty: An Economics Of Intangibles, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

At the center of our Symposium stand two papers: "A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs" (Manifesto) and "Legal Hybrids: Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms" (Legal Hybrids). Both are stimulating. Both are lengthy. As a result, my primary role is that of a guide: this Comment will summarize the authors' proposals, analyze certain aspects in greater detail, and outline their explicit and implicit methodologies. Part I of the Comment describes the papers' positions and methodologies. Part II highlights some of the papers' many contributions to the literature, and offers some other evaluative observations.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Taxpayers Asset Project Of The Center For Study Of Responsive Law In Support Of Petitioners, Genetics Institute, Inc., Et. Al. V. Amgen Inc., 502 U.S. 856 (1991), Michael H. Davis

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Although a patent appears to be a private right, that private right is only "secondary," as this Court has stated, to the public bargain of which it is but a part. The focus must always be whether the public has received full information about the nature of the invention so that future inventors may reuse and improve it. The decision below reflects a failure to recognize the patent's monopoly nature and as a result abandons the "best mode" rule forbidding the inventor form concealing the best way of replicating the invention. By turning the subjective test of "best mode" into …

Reexamining Intellectual Property Concepts: A Glimpse Into The Future Through The Prism Of Chakrabarty, Monroe E. Price

Articles

No abstract provided.

An Economic Analysis Of Royalty Terms In Patent Licenses, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

Efficient exploitation of a patent often requires patentees to license users of their inventions. The courts, on the other hand, have proscribed many forms of license agreements and discouraged patent licensing in general, thereby diminishing the efficacy of the patent system as a stimulus to R & D. This negative attitude is attributable to fears that licensing will be used to protect invalid patents and secure illegitimate extensions of monopoly power. Part I of this Note reviews judicial treatment of certain royalty terms in patent licenses, describing the restraints the courts have imposed on the freedom of patentees to license …

General Motors Corporation V. Devex Corp., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Notes On Misc Re Contract - 1981, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

Once there is a patent, voluntarily-accepted user restrictions may not be enforceable. Or, at least, an attempt on the patentee's part to condition access of certain types on obtaining such restrictions, may be impossible. See 30 BNA PTCJ 104 (5/30/85)(Restrictions voided on availability of deposited yeast strains.) Filed under Yeast case.

Enforceability Of Agreements To Arbitrate: An Examination Of The Public Policy Defense, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

This Article seeks to demonstrate that the public policy of doctrine should be, and in general has been, limited to two types of cases. First, as already discussed, an agreement to arbitrate should not be enforced when the statute or case law principle at issue has aims other than promoting justice between the parties. Second, when a party to the agreement belongs to a class peculiarly subject to imposition by the class to which the other party belongs, an agreement to arbitrate will not and should not be enforced.

In the latter class of cases, the susceptibility to imposition may …

Lecture Draft On Sensory Recall Device - 1980, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

Perception is a bodily function. The brain “sees” according to the orders which the optic nerve relays from its position at the back of the eye. Similarly, it is the brain which also "hears." As we know from our dreaming and our remembering, neither eye nor ear is indispensable to having the sensations of seeing and hearing.

Dawson Chemical Co. V. Rohm & Haas Co., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Aronson V. Quick Point Pencil Company, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Glaxo Group Ltd., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Deepsouth Packing Co. V. Laitram Corp., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.